{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 23, 2019\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nMonday, January 23, 2019\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.\nPresent:\nVice Chair Murray; Members Chiu, Johnson, and Sullivan-\nCheah\nAbsent:\nNone\nProgram staff:\nGrant Eshoo, Samantha Columbus\nCity Attorney staff: John Le\nStaff called roll of case participants. All parties were present.\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\nProgram staff announced that January 25 is the last day to turn in applications for\nthe open RRAC seat.\nProgram staff requested Committee members provide their availability for future\nspecial meetings to hear additional cases. Members indicated their availability for\nspecial meetings on February 7, February 25, March 4, and March 11.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.1\nNone.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\n5-A. Approval of the minutes of the November 7, 2018 regular meeting\nThe Committee agreed to table consideration of this item to a future meeting to\nallow revisions.\n5-B. Approval of the minutes of the November 19, 2018 special\nmeeting\nMotion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-\nCheah). Motion passed 4-0.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 23, 2019\n5-C. Approval of the minutes of the November 27, 2018 special\nmeeting\nMotion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-\nCheah). Motion passed 4-0.\n5-D. Approval of the minutes of the December 5, 2018 special meeting\nMotion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-\nCheah). Motion passed 4-0.\n5-E. Approval of the minutes of the December 12, 2018 special meeting\nMotion and second to approve the minutes (Vice Chair Murray and Member Sullivan-\nCheah). Motion passed 4-0.\n6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. Discussion of vote for Chair and Vice Chair\nMember Chiu expressed support for Vice Chair Murray, who has been serving as Interim\nChair, to continue as Chair, and for Member Sullivan-Cheah to serve as Vice Chair.\nVice Chair Murray stated that, should the Committee gain a fifth member, the\nCommittee could hold a new vote for Chair and Vice Chair at that point.\n7-B. Vote on Chair and Vice Chair\nMotion and second to elect Vice Chair Murray as Chair of the Committee (Members Chiu\nand Johnson). Motion passed 4-0.\nMotion and second to elect Member Sullivan-Cheah as Vice Chair of the Committee\n(Members Chiu and Johnson). Motion passed 4-0.\nPositions are effective immediately.\n7-C. Case 1110 - 1861 Poggi St., Apt. B101\nTenant: Nasir Khan\nLandlord: Andy King", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 23, 2019\nProposed rent increase: $164.00 (10.0%), to a total rent of $1,811.00,\neffective October 1, 2018\nMr. King stated that current ownership purchased the building a little over a year ago,\nand the previous owner left a lot of deferred maintenance to address. Over the course\nof the past year, they have spent over $3 million on seismic bracing, replacing rotting\nbalconies, roof maintenance, re-painting, and amenities including a gym, children's play\narea, new seating, and gas barbecue grill. To cover some of that investment they are\nasking for rent increases in excess of five percent. The rent increases are also informed\nby the market rates, with the landlord renting comparable one-bedroom units for\n$2,200.\nMr. Khan stated that the increase would be a burden. He is the sole income earner for a\nfour-person household that includes his wife and two children, and he also provides\nsupport for his parents. He has lived in the unit since 2015 and has paid rent in a timely\nmanner. He stated he generally makes about $1,400 every two weeks, but his work\nhours vary. He said in previous years the rent has increased 4.9 percent.\nChair Murray asked Mr. King if he wanted to respond. Mr. King said he appreciated Mr.\nKhan's concerns but it can be difficult to keep rents affordable while also making repairs\nto the property, particularly addressing seismic safety.\nMember Chui asked Mr. Khan if there was an increase amount with which he would be\ncomfortable. Mr. Khan responded five percent.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah, and Chair Murray asked Mr. Khan for clarification and details\nabout his family and employment situations. Mr. Khan reported that his children are 4\nand 6 years old, and they attend school in Alameda; his wife has been unable to find\nwork and he anticipates she will continue to take care of the home and children; he\ncurrently works as a salesman; and he is paid hourly and typically receives an annual\nraise between $0.50 and $1 per hour.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked if Mr. Khan could express the rent increase he would\nbe comfortable with as a dollar amount. Mr. Khan responded $82. Vice Chair Sullivan-\nCheah asked what financial impact the full rent increase would have on Mr. Khan's\nhousehold. Mr. Khan stated he would not be able to afford food and out-of-pocket\nmedical expenses.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what utilities are included in the rent. Mr. King\nresponded that all utilities are included except for gas. Mr. Khan stated a typical gas bill\nis sometimes $15, but varies depending on the season.\nCommittee members had no further questions.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 4, "text": "about debris left behind from the construction, and although it has since been cleaned\nup, the inspector informed her that the landlords have lost their construction permit for\na new apartment, perhaps having to do with the City's electrical code. This occurred in\nSeptember and the tenants received the rent increase notices in October.\nUpon review of her statement, Ms. Conway corrected the amount of the property tax\ndiscrepancy she alleged to $20,071, which was $8,000 less than what Ms. Rousseau\nsubmitted.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 5, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 23, 2019\nChair Murray asked Ms. Rousseau if she wanted to respond. She stated that she believes\nthe discrepancy in the property tax figures may be due to the purchase occurring in the\nmiddle of the calendar year. The utility estimate includes $600 for garbage service every\ntwo months and is also the same that the previous owner used during the sale. She said\nshe was unsure what Ms. Conway was referring to in reference to the lost permit.\nMember Johnson asked if Ms. Rousseau had received a comprehensive assessment or\nofficial report of the maintenance issues prior to purchasing. Ms. Rousseau confirmed\nthat they did.\nMember Chiu asked clarifying questions about Ms. Conway's tenancy and the property.\nShe stated that she has lived there since 2010, her rent increased $19 in 2011, $45 in\n2017, and $50 in 2018, and she was comfortable with those increases. She added that\nthe property does not include laundry or common areas other than stairwells, hallways,\nand lighted outdoor spaces.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked whether Ms. Conway was the only working adult in the\nunit. She responded that she was, and her use of \"we\" in submitted materials refers to\ntenants of other units. Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked what sources had informed her\nstatement that 1/3 of take-home pay is a reasonable amount. She responded that in her\nexperience it is a common rule and often a prerequisite when property management\ncompanies are evaluating applicants.\nChair Murray asked clarifying questions about Ms. Rousseau's family and finances. She\nresponded that she bought the property with her brother, who is disabled and not able\nto work. She said he receives SSI and she provides him with additional support. She\nstated her brother is dependent on income from the building to supplement his income,\nwhich was their intention when they purchased the property, and the purchase was also\na retirement investment. Chair Murray asked what the impact on Ms. Rousseau and her\nbrother would be if they did not get the rent increase they were seeking. She responded\nthat she would not be able to help her brother as much as she wanted, and that it would\nlimit needed upgrades to the building. She said the electrical upgrade would cost $30,000,\nand interior painting would cost $3,000 per unit, and the building has seven one-bedroom\nunits of similar size.\nMs. Conway questioned whether her unit should be considered a one-bedroom apartment\nbecause it does not have interior doors. Ms. Rousseau provided a floorplan of the unit.\nChair Murray noted that Ms. Rousseau's submitted expenses include the annual housing\nprogram fee, which the Ordinance expressly forbids from passing on to tenants.\nChair Murray asked Ms. Conway about the current condition of her unit. Ms. Conway\nstated that none of the issues identified in her submission rose to the level of emergency.\nShe said she wears slippers to avoid injuries due to loose floor tiles, and the windows are", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 6, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 23, 2019\nhard to open and close. She stated she loves the apartment and has a close relationship\nwith the neighbors. Chair Murray stated that it seemed she was reporting on maintenance\nissues that need to be addressed. Ms. Conway raised the issue of the revoked\nconstruction permit for a rear unit, which is not occupied. Chair Murray noted that Ms.\nRousseau had not disclosed any issues with permits or intent to construct.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Ms. Conway if the previous landlord had a formal process\nfor submitting maintenance issues or repair requests. She replied that she would call the\nprevious owner to report maintenance problems. She said she had not submitted a\nrequest about the loose tiles or windows.\nChair Murray asked if either landlord or tenant had changed their positions. Ms. Conway\nasked if Ms. Rousseau would consider a 3 percent increase, and Ms. Rousseau declined.\nChair Murray asked Ms. Rousseau if there was an amount smaller than $391 that would\nmeet her goals and needs. Ms. Rousseau suggested $1,300 per month, a $245 increase.\nMs. Conway countered with a rent of $1,125 per month. Ms. Rousseau declined, noting\nthat she calculates the property tax increase alone is $246 per unit. Ms. Conway noted\nthe housing program fee cannot be included.\nChair Murray asked Ms. Conway about her income. She responded that she is salaried\nand usually gets a 2 percent raise per year.\nMember Chiu asked Ms. Rousseau if she knew how long the previous landlords had owned\nthe building. She said she did not, but it was a long time, and the property had passed\nfrom parents to children, which explained the low tax base.\nChair Murray asked Ms. Rousseau what effect not getting the full requested increase\nwould have on her ability to address deferred maintenance. Ms. Rousseau responded that\nit would be hard to keep up with the needed maintenance. Chair Murray asked if Ms.\nRousseau had set aside any funds for maintenance and upgrades based on the\nassessments and inspections conducted during the purchase. Ms. Rousseau stated that\nthey had, but they had not anticipated the full cost of the electrical upgrade because of\nthe undergrounding requirement, which added about $20,000.\nMs. Conway made an offer of $1,200 per month. Chair Murray asked Ms. Conway if an\nincrease to $1,300 would force her to move. Ms. Conway stated that she could continue\nto live there but it would require a change of lifestyle.\nThe parties agreed on a monthly rent of $1,250. Program staff clarified that the effective\ndate would be Feb. 1, 2019.\nAt 7:55 p.m., the Committee agreed to take a five minute break.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 7, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 23, 2019\n7-E. Case 1190 - 2412 Eagle Ave., Apt. E\nTenant: Marine Hovanessian\nLandlord: Kathy Rousseau\nProposed rent increase: $391.00 (50.1%), to a total rent of $1,171.00,\neffective January 1, 2019\nMs. Rousseau stated that the current rent of $780 a month is 230 percent below the\nmarket rate, based on comparable one-bedroom units in the area. She said she was\nrequesting the same $391 increase for all tenants of the property, and even with the\nincrease, the rent would still be 50 percent below the market rate. Ms. Rousseau pointed\nout that the amount she was requesting was comparable to the amount the rent would\nbe had the previous owner increased the rent 4.25 percent each year over the length of\nthe tenancy.\nMs. Hovanessian referred the Committee to the letter she submitted. She added that she\nhas lived in the unit for 15 years and had built her life based on her existing rent.\nSpecifically, she sponsored her mother's immigration to the United States in 2009 and\nher father's in 2013, and he explained that she is financially responsible for them, as they\nare unable to work because of their age and language barriers. She said she understands\nMs. Rousseau's position, but the increase will have a large impact on her and her parents.\nThe building does not have laundry facilities. There have been no upgrades to her\napartment in the 15 years she has lived there. She said there are cracks between the tiles\nin her kitchen floor that water gets into. The windows cannot fully close which lets in cold\nair. She said living in Alameda provides a safe community for her parents. Her apartment\nis a little smaller than Unit D from the previous case.\nMember Chiu asked for clarification on previous rent increases and her finances. Ms.\nHovanessian stated that there had been few rent increases during her tenancy,\nincluding none during the first six years. She said her monthly income is about $4,500\nmonthly, and expenses are about $4,430.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked for clarification on the condition of Ms. Hovanessian's\napartment. She stated the previous owners replaced a broken heater and a window that\nwould not close, although the window still has issues.\nChair Murray noted that Ms. Hovanessian stated in her materials that no increase would\nbe reasonable. Given the costs outlined by Ms. Rousseau, Chair Murray asked if there\nwas any increase that Ms. Hovanessian could afford. Ms. Hovanessian questioned\nwhether Ms. Rousseau would be OK with a 5 percent increase. Chair Murray responded\nthat the hearing was an opportunity for the parties to talk directly and make offers.\nMs. Hovanessian clarified that her mother and daughter lived with her immediately after\ntheir immigration, but her parents and daughter now lived in a small two-bedroom", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 8, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 23, 2019\napartment elsewhere in Alameda. She said her daughter work part-time and attends\ncollege, and she contributes to her daughter's food and utilities, as well as pays the full\n$1,600 monthly rent on that apartment, in addition to her own.\nThe parties were not able to reach an agreement and the Committee began\ndeliberations.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated that neither party's position S unreasonable. He said in\nthese situations he considers who has the financial ability to absorb more financial\nhardship.\nChair Murray stated it may not be possible for the tenant to continue this arrangement\nwith two households in the long-term, but the Committee can consider a compromise\nthat avoids forcing an immediate relocation.\nMember Johnson stated she believes the landlord is justified in seeking an increase of\nmore than 5 percent, but that those buying a rental property must consider the\nlikelihood of successfully seeking a 50 percent increase when deciding on a purchase\nprice.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah stated he believes the tenant's position that 10 percent is a\nmaximum increase she could afford based on her budget.\nMember Johnson stated that the owner did make an investment, and it is reasonable to\nexpect a return.\nChair Murray noted that both parties are trying to provide financially for family\nmembers who are unable to work. She noted that the committee only has the ability to\nmake a decision for one year.\nMember Johnson stated she believes a 50 percent increase is too large, but a 10\npercent increase may not be enough for the landlord given the higher tax base and few\nrent increases over the years.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah noted that their decision on this case, as well as the building's\nhistory, would be part of the public record and could therefore be considered if the\nlandlord seeks a new increase on the unit after a year.\nMember Chiu suggested a $100 increase, recognizing it would be a challenge for the\ntenant but perhaps low enough to give her time to figure out a long-term solution. Vice\nChair Sullivan-Cheah stated he thought it was reasonable, but emphasized he\nunderstands that a roughly $15 per month difference is not trivial for tenants on tight\nbudgets. Chair Murray questioned whether $15 a month would be trivial for a landlord.\nMembers Chiu and Johnson said they believed it would not be trivial because it helps to\nestablish a base for future rents.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 9, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 23,2019\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah motioned for an increase of $100 effective February 1, 2019.\nHe amended his motion to an increase of $0 for January 2019, followed by an increase\nof $100 from February 2019 through December 2019. Motion seconded by Member\nChiu. The motion passed as amended 4-0.\n7-F. Case 1193 - 2121 Santa Clara Ave., Apt. 5\nTenant: Damu Sudi Alii\nLandlord: Edward Wong\nProposed rent increase: $50.00 (4.8%), to a total rent of $1,100.00, effective\nJanuary 1, 2019\nMr. Alii said he is a senior on fixed income and has been renting this unit from Mr.\nWong since 2006. For the first three or four years, he said, there were no rent\nincreases, but in the last five or six years the size of the requests had steadily\nincreased. He said he has been supplementing his income by working part time as a\nteacher and musician, but his deteriorating health is making work difficult. He feels the\namount is unreasonable given the living space, which is a converted garage. He has to\npay additional money for storage space elsewhere on the site. He is now at a point\nwhere he cannot keep up with the increases. He said the ventilation in the unit is not\ngood, and poor heat retention leads to higher utility bills. He stated Mr. Wong has been\na good landlord but has not always addressed his requests, such as fixing the gap\nunder his front door.\nMr. Wong said the unit is 800 to 900 square feet and used to be a firehouse. He said he\nvalues Mr. Alii as a tenant. He said his other tenants are all Section 8, and the increases\nhe is asking from them are double what he is asking from Mr. Alii. He said the building\nis old and requires a lot of maintenance, and n the last four to five years, he has had to\nreplace the sewer and roof. He said he believes he is asking for a reasonable rate of\nreturn, adding that he and his wife are in their 80's and depend on income from the\nproperty.\nMr. Alii said he intends to stop using the storage space to decrease his costs. Mr. Wong\nsaid he would reduce Mr. Alii's overall payments by $15 if he removes his items from\nstorage. Chair Murray asked Mr. Alii if he could afford a $35 rent increase. Mr. Alii said\nit would still be a hardship.\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked Mr. Alii to clarify his concerns about rising expenses.\nMr. Alii said he is partly worried about absorbing future increases, but primarily he does\nnot think the unit is worth the price Mr. Wong is asking.\nMember Chiu asked how many units the property has. Mr. Wong said Mr. Alii's unit is a\nsmall cottage behind four units. Chair Murray asked about Mr. Wong's income. He", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 10, "text": "Motion and second for an increase of $0 for January 2019, followed by an increase of\n$35 effective February 2019 through December 2019 (Vice Chair Sullivan-Cheah and\nMember Chiu). Motion passed 3-1.", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 11, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 23, 2019\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA ITEMS, NO.2\nNone.\n9. MATTERS INTIATED\nVice Chair Sullivan-Cheah asked about the timeline for approving another Committee\nmember. Program staff responded that following the submission deadline on January\n25, it will take a few weeks to process applications and for the Mayor's office to review\nthem and decide which applicants to interview.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nRRAC Secretary\nGrant Eshoo\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on March 4, 2019", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 1, "text": "FINAL MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\nMONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2019\nChair Miley convened the meeting at 7:14pm.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Miley, Commissioners Hans, Johnson, Soules.\nAbsent: Commissioners Nachtigall and Palmer.\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\n*None*\n3. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT\nJim Strehlow said he is finding many Lime bikes being left in inappropriate locations\nsuch as blocking sidewalks. He said the September minutes were not approved at the\nDecember meeting and are not on the current agenda.\nChair Miley announced that the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan workshop would be\nheld at Alameda High School on the upcoming Saturday morning at 9am.\nStaff Member Payne read the announcements listed in the Agenda.\n3-D Upcoming Grant-Funded Bicycle Safety Education Classes\nJim Strehlow said he is seeing an influx of foreigners in Alameda and he wonders if\nthere is an education gap regarding rules of the road for bicyclists. He said the more\ndiversity there is the more difficult it will be to educate the public about basic traffic laws\nbecause of language barriers.\nCommissioner Soules congratulated the City for the rollout of their new website. (*Note-\nDue to a wiring issue, Commissioner Soules microphone was not working.)\n4. CONSENT CALENDAR\n4-A 2019-6461\nDraft Meeting Minutes - July 25, 2018\n4-B 2019-6462\nDraft Meeting Minutes - December 3, 2018\nCommissioner Hans made a motion to accept the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Soules seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.\n1", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 2, "text": "5. NEW BUSINESS\n5-A 2019-6463\nApprove the Central Avenue Webster Street Options for Further Analysis\nand the Two-way Bikeway Extension between Paden School and McKay\nAvenue\nStaff Member Payne introduced the item. The staff report and attachments can be found\nat:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3836629&GUID=E9A72FB1\nADF9-4D58-8CFF-3637BA660926&FullText=1\nThaddeus Wozniak, CDM Smith, gave a presentation.\nChair Miley asked how the transition from the two way bikeway to bike lanes at 8th st.\nwould work.\nMr. Wozniak said that the transition would have a two stage turning movement for the\nwestbound bikes and eastbound riders would continue straight. He said they would\ncoordinate the signal timing to make that turning movement consecutively.\nStaff Member Payne summarized the outreach to this point and outlined the next steps\n(detailed in the staff report.)\nCommissioner Johnson asked whether the two right hand turn lanes from Central to\nWebster in the Continuous Bike Lane option would have the bike lane going straight\nthrough the turning vehicles.\nMr. Wozniak explained how the peak hour turn lane would work. He said the intent\nwould be to have turns coming from one lane or the other depending on time of day, but\nnot both.\nChair Miley opened the public hearing.\nBrian McGuire introduced a video of what the current City Council members had to say\nabout the plan and what to do at the Webster and Central intersection.\nHazel McGuire said kids should be safe and that the bike lane should be closer to the\nsidewalk and the parked cars should be closer to the moving cars. She said she loves\nbiking and walking to school and parks.\nLinda Asbury, Executive Director of WABA, said the plan that was approved in 2016 was\nnot the compromise that they agreed to before the meeting. She said meetings need to\nbe had at the intersection in question to understand the problem. She said the\nbusinesses cannot afford to lose street parking. She said we need traffic calming. She\n2", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 3, "text": "said we need to be fair to the businesses that put their investments and jobs on the line\ndaily.\nJ. Lucey said he supports the four lane with traffic calming proposals. He said staff\nappears to have a clear bias against the business owners. He said the elimination of\nparking would be hard on the businesses. He said recent construction by PG&E\nillustrated the traffic that may occur with lane reduction.\nJim Strehlow said this area is not comparable to Shoreline or Fernside. He said Castro\nValley completed its main street design two years ago and favored business needs over\nthe wants of bicyclists. He said trucks serving Neptune Plaza must use Central Ave and\nany road diet proposal would prohibit this. He said bicycle safety should mean avoiding\ntruck routes like Central Ave.\nJon Spangler said bicyclists on Castro Valley Blvd are taking their lives in their own\nhands. He said backing up traffic is an acceptable price to pay to keep pedestrians from\ngetting hit. He said the continuous bike lane and two way protected bike lanes are the\nonly options that provide any safety to cyclists. He said the Page crosswalk needs to be\ntaken care of. He said safety is the primary responsibility.\nMarie RiccoBene, representing the Park Webster Condominium HOA, said safety is very\nimportant. She said evacuation is a large concern for residents. She said they support\nbetter pedestrian crossings and calming measures. She said they support the four lane\noption with traffic calming.\nBonnie Wehmann, Easy Street Cycling, said she fully supports the protected bike lanes.\nShe said sharrows are confusing and do not always help. She said people are often\ndouble parking in traditional bike lanes which forces kids on bikes into traffic. She said\nthe data shows that when you bring bikes into an area you bring more business.\nChair Miley closed the public hearing.\nCommissioner Johnson pointed out that they are not selecting any one design tonight\nand only choosing the four options to study further.\nChair Miley said the Webster and Central intersection was a major issue when this was\nbefore the commission previously. He said all the speakers tonight gave good feedback\nabout issues to review when studying the four options. He said sharrows are not an ideal\nbicycle facility and do not seem like a good solution for a segmented corridor.\nCommissioner Soules said it would be nice to have a real compromise solution between\nthe business district and cyclists' preferences. She said she would like to see the\nintersection during peak travel times. She said she is concerned about vehicles diverting\nto other streets. She said she would like to see what the answer is for getting people off\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 4, "text": "the island in an emergency. She asked what the process would be in regards to coming\nback to this body before it goes to City Council for a decision.\nStaff Member Payne said they would come back to the Transportation Commission with\na preferred option later in the year before proceeding to Council.\nCommissioner Soules asked if the parking was going to remain in all options.\nStaff Member Payne said parking will remain on both sides of the street. She said the\nmore detailed design may remove some spaces in the corridor for daylighting purposes.\nShe said there is also the option of using the parking near Croll's for a peak hour turn\nlane.\nChair Miley said the analysis should look at where it may be appropriate to add loading\nzones.\nCommissioner Johnson asked what the rules were for delivery trucks blocking the bike\nlane.\nAlameda PD Sgt. Foster said at no point are you legally allowed to block a bike lane. He\nsaid that it is not something that frequently enforced unless there is an immediate safety\nissue or ongoing complaints.\nCommissioner Hans said he was okay approving the study of the four options and will\nlook to see how much parking is lost under each option.\nChair Miley relayed a message from Commissioner Nachtigall that she supports moving\nforward with studying the four options.\nCommissioner Hans made a motion to approve the staff recommendation to study\nthe four proposed alternatives. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.\nChair Miley asked that staff include all the comments as items to consider when studying\nthe options.\nStaff Member Payne reminded the commission that there are two actions required,\nadding the recommendation to extend the protected bikeway from Paden School to\nMcKay Ave.\nCommissioner Hans added the staff recommendation to extend the two way\nprotected bikeway from Paden to McKay to his motion. Commissioner Johnson\nconfirmed his second of the motion. The motion passed 4-0.\n4", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 5, "text": "5-B 2019-6464\nRecommendation to Adopt the Street Sections associated with the City's\nAdaptive Reuse Infrastructure Project within Alameda Point\nStaff Member Wikstrom gave a presentation. The staff report and attachments can be\nfound at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3836630&GUID=AD849568-\n98D3-4162-B696-A05E6F647303&FullText=1\nChair Miley opened the public hearing.\nBrian McGuire said we have an opportunity to design a street network from scratch. He\nsaid that the design on Tower should match the design on Pan Am where the bike lanes\nare next to the sidewalk to match up with the bike lanes east of Pan Am.\nCommissioner Johnson asked if there was a reason why the new design for Tower did\nnot use one way protected bike lanes.\nStaff Member Wikstrom said they just went with the simplest idea which is to mirror the\nalready approved design for Tower east of Pan Am. He said that conceptually they may\nbe able to achieve the suggested one way protected lanes, depending upon the need to\nplace utilities within the already defined right of way. He said they can pursue the idea\nbut cannot guarantee the execution.\nChair Miley asked if the final plan would come back to this body and Council before\ncompletion.\nStaff Member Wikstrom said their intention was to approve the street sections and they\nwould go to 100% design and the construction without coming back to the commission.\nHe said he could come back with this section in a few months with an update or the\ncommission could just give direction to pursue the idea if possible. He said there is no\nreason on the surface why they would not pursue a one way cycle track unless there\nwas a physical constraint with the utilities that prevented it from being possible.\nJon Spangler said he agreed with the suggestion to pursue one way protected bike\nlanes. He said that if that is not possible, consistent one way buffered bike lanes would\nbe preferable to switching from a two way cycle track to one way bike lanes.\nChair Miley closed the public hearing.\nCommissioner Soules said she was glad that these refinements are being addressed\nearly on. She said she is happy to examine the possibility of making a good faith effort to\nimplement the one way protected lanes on W. Tower Ave, pending any serious fiscal\nimpact or delay in the project.\n5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Soules made a motion to approve the item. Commissioner Hans\nseconded the motion.\nChair Miley relayed Commissioner Nachtigall's support for the staff recommendation.\nThe motion passed 4-0.\n5-C 2019-6465\nApprove the City of Alameda Transportation Program Plan for Seniors\nand People with Disabilities for Fiscal Year 2019/2020\nStaff Member Payne gave a presentation. The staff report can be found at:\nIttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3836631&GUID=A4C4061C-\n02EA-4E64-BF8E-477856E96851&FullText=1\nCommissioner Hans made a motion to accept the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.\n6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A 2019-6466\nOakland-Alameda Access Project - Request Transportation Commission\nMember on Advisory Group\nStaff Member Payne said they are hoping to find a member of the Transportation\nCommission to be a member of the OAAP Advisory Group.\nChair Miley asked what they time commitment would be.\nStaff Member Wheeler said the group has had two meetings to date. She said there will\nbe 2-4 more meetings.\nChair Miley said he could work with staff to identify a commissioner, noting that some\nmembers were not present.\nCommissioner Johnson asked if this project is examining the other bridges across the\nestuary and not just the tubes.\nStaff Member Wheeler said the project is focused on the tubes and their connections to\n880.\nCommissioner Johnson asked if anyone is working on the other connections like the\nFruitvale Bridge.\n6", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-01-23", "page": 7, "text": "Staff Member Wheeler said they are working with Alameda County on a grant\napplication to replace or retrofit the Fruitvale Bridge to become a multimodal lifeline\nstructure.\n6-B Potential Future Meeting Agenda Items\n1. Transportation Choices Plan and Housing Element Update and Next\nSteps\n2. Transportation Management Association Annual Reports\n3. Alameda County Transportation Commission Capital Improvement\nProgram Grant Submittals\n4. West End Ferry Terminal Service and Access\nCommissioner Johnson asked if the issue of the bike paths on Harbor Bay can be\nevaluated by and hopefully improved.\n7. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PUBLIC COMMENT\nJim Strehlow asked if there was any follow up regarding Commissioner Miley's previous\nrequest to pursue improvements to vehicular circulation in Oakland near High St.,\nAlameda Ave, and 880. He said there were originally plans to connect Alameda Ave to\n42nd Ave which would alleviate the current congestion. He apologized for his\ninterruption during item 5-A. He said allowing someone more than three minutes without\nannouncing the decision publicly gives the appearance of bias.\nChair Miley asked staff to pursue an update to the High Street issue. He said he should\nhave announced that the video shown in item 5-A would be longer than three minutes.\nJon Spangler announced that Changing Gears Bike Shop would be closing in about a\nmonth due to development at Alameda Point. He said the owner would stay open if he\ncould find an appropriate space on the West End.\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nChair Miley adjourned the meeting at 9:03pm.\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-01-23.pdf"}